1

Reporter's Statement of the Case

it succeeded a partnership that had existed since 1880. Since its incorporation it has been engaged in general construction work and has performed an average of more than one million dollars' worth of such work per year.

2. Pursuant to an invitation of defendant, dated February 13, 1934, plaintiff on March 1, 1934, submitted its bid for the construction and erection of sixty-eight (68) buildings to be used as officers' quarters at Patterson Field, Fairfield, Ohio. Patterson Field is located in the northwestern section of Greene County, Ohio, and is from 8 to 15 miles from Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio, Springfield, Clark County, Ohio, and Xenia, Greene County, Ohio.

On March 8, 1934, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, wherein, for a consideration of $1,018,300.00, plaintiff agreed to furnish all labor and materials and to perform all work required for the construction of officers' quarters at Patterson Field, according to accompanying plans and specifications, all of which are of record as plaintiff's exhibits "F," "B," and "C."

On March 18, 1934 plaintiff began its work, and agreed to complete it by June 1, 1935, which time was later changed to July 1, 1935. Certain changes and modifications were made in the contract which, according to the defendant's contention, increased the contract price to $1,022,881.21, which sum has been paid to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff claims it is entitled to additional sums on account of wrongful deductions and alleged breaches of the agreement by the defendant, which claims are hereinafter set forth under the headings, "First cause of action" to and including "Fifteenth cause of action."

3. The work consisted of the erection of 68 buildings, providing 91 sets of officers' quarters. A number of these buildings were quite similar, calling for repetition of identical labor operations, and permitting the use of prefabricated materials of identical pattern. The work presented an opportunity for the application of "mass production methods of construction," which plaintiff employed. It divided the buildings into three main groups, placing buildings of a similar nature in each of these groups.

A general superintendent supervised the entire work. An assistant superintendent was placed in charge of each of the

Reporter's Statement of the Case

96 C. Cls.

three main groups of buildings. There were several “expediters" whose duty it was to supervise and schedule the delivery of materials and check upon the work in an effort to secure proper coordination. Under each assistant superintendent there were a number of foremen in charge of the various construction crews. There was one person in a supervisory capacity for every eleven men employed on the job.

The work to be performed in each of the three main groups of buildings was assigned to separate crews of workmen, each crew performing the same operation in all of the buildings of that main group. Plaintiff planned its work in a manner to permit each superintendent to cover his area and visit each building several times a day.

4. Plaintiff located and operated a mill on a railroad siding at a distance of one-half mile from the site of the work. Its material was delivered in carload lots to the mill by a conveyor belt, where it was prefabricated according to pattern. Plaintiff also had at the site of the work a power-driven pipecutting machine. The handling and prefabrication of materials in this manner was designed to lower both the time of manufacture and the cost.

Plaintiff's mass-production method was devised to obtain greater efficiency on the part of the mechanics by restricting them to the same operation in one group of similarly constructed houses, thus increasing their familiarity with and their skill in the performance of certain operations.

5. The contract provides, in part, as follows:

ART. 15. Disputes.-All labor issues arising under this contract which cannot be satisfactorily adjusted by the contracting officer shall be submitted to the Board of Labor Review. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this contract, all other disputes concerning questions arising under this contract shall be decided by the contracting officer or his duly authorized representative, subject to written appeal by the contractor within 30 days to the head of the department concerned or his duly authorized representative, whose decision shall be final and conclusive upon the parties thereto as to such questions. In the meantime the contractor shall diligently proceed with the work as directed.

1

Reporter's Statement of the Case

6. The specifications, under "General Conditions," provide:

G. C. 10. Interpretation of contract.-Unless otherwise specifically set forth, the Contractor shall furnish all materials, labor, etc., necessary to fully complete the work according to the true intent and meaning of the drawings and specifications, of which intent and meaning the C. Q. M. shall be the interpreter. Except when otherwise indicated, no local terms or classifications will be considered in the interpretation of the contract or the specifications forming a part thereof.

*

G. C. 19. Drawings and specifications cooperative.The drawings and specifications shall be considered as cooperative and work and material called for by one and not mentioned in the other shall be done or furnished in as faithful and thorough a manner as though fully covered by both.

G. C. 20. Complete work required. It is intended that the drawings and specifications include everything requisite and necessary to properly finish the entire work, notwithstanding every item necessarily involved is not particularly mentioned; all work when finished shall be delivered in a complete and undamaged state.

G. C. 21. Discrepancies.-Where no figures or memoranda are given, the drawings shall be accurately followed according to scale. In any case of discrepancy in the figures or drawings, the matter shall be immediately submitted to the C. Q. M., without whose decision said discrepancy shall not be adjusted by the Contractor, save only at his own risk; and in the settlement of any complications arising from such adjustment the Contractor shall bear all extra expense involved. In case of difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern.

G. C. 24. Laying out work.-The Contractor must lay out his own work; he shall be responsible for measurements; he must exercise proper precaution to verify the figures before laying out the work and will be held responsible for any errors therein that otherwise might have been avoided. He shall promptly inform the C. Q. M. of any errors or discrepancies he may discover in the drawings and specifications, in order that the proper corrections may be made and understood. The

Reporter's Statement of the Case

96 C. Cls.

work must be carried on systematically and so managed at all times as to secure rapid progress and avoid annoyance and inconvenience.

G. C. 28. Inspection and acceptance-or rejection of work. The Contractor must understand that the materials delivered and labor furnished by him at any and all times during the progress of the work and prior to final acceptance of and payment for same, shall be subject to the inspection of the C. Q. M., or other authorized agent of the U. S., with the full right to accept or reject any part thereof; and that he must, at his own expense, within a reasonable time, remedy any defective or unsatisfactory materials or work; and that in event of his failure to do so, after notice, the C. Q. M. shall have the full right to have the same done and to deduct the cost thereof from any money due the Contractor. All condemned materials must be at once removed from the reservation. The specifications, under "Special Conditions" No. 6, provide:

Visiting site.-The Contractor shall visit the site and acquaint himself as to local conditions, availability of water, roads, soil conditions, and the relation of finished grade of the buildings to existing grades and the natural surface of the ground.

7. At the beginning of the work the plaintiff agreed with the defendant that the provisions of article 15 requiring an appeal within thirty days to the head of the department would be waived and that all appeals might be presented at the conclusion of the work. When the work was concluded plaintiff filed written appeals from various decisions of the contracting officer, and its representatives came to Washington to present the appeals in person. They first went to see Brigadier General Guiney, an assistant to the Quartermaster General, who was the contracting officer. He referred them to Captain Bazire, a subordinate, with whom they had a number of extended discussions.

In the course of these discussions plaintiff requested Captain Bazire to let them see the report of the constructing quartermaster on the disputes. He refused to do so, since, he said, the information contained therein might be useful to plaintiff in making out a claim against the defend

1

Reporter's Statement of the Case

ant. They were also informed that the decisions of the constructing quartermaster on questions of fact were taken as final and conclusive by the War Department and that no investigation of the facts would be made by the Department, although the contractor might dispute the statement of facts of the constructing quartermaster. Finally, they were advised that in cases of doubt as to the correctness of the constructing quartermaster's interpretation of the plans and specifications, this doubt was resolved in favor of the Government.

Thereafter, plaintiff's representatives arranged through one of the Senators from Ohio for a conference with The Assistant Secretary of War. They told him they wanted to present to him their appeals. He told them that

he didn't have time to hear appeals, that he couldn't take the time to consider these matters or pass judgment on them because he had too many other weighty things to do

and he referred them to a Colonel Dunn. Colonel Dunn told them that he didn't have time to pass on the questions, and referred them to Major Pearson. Major Pearson said he did not have time, and referred them to some captain in his office. This captain told them that questions of this sort were left to the Quartermaster General's office for determination. They then went to see the Quartermaster General. He was out and they were referred to one of his assistants, who was Brigadier General Guiney, the contracting officer. General Guiney informed them that he did not have sufficient information to talk to them and referred them to Captain Bazire, his subordinate. They were denied an opportunity to present their appeals to anyone, except Captain Bazire. After their conference with him he wrote out a recommendation to The Secretary of War setting out the action to be taken on plaintiff's various appeals. This was written for the signature of Brigadier General Guiney, who was the contracting officer. General Guiney signed it "For the Quartermaster General" and forwarded it to The Secretary of War. The only documents inclosed with the report were the recommendations of the constructing quartermaster, two letters from the Public